QNX drives into CES 2013 as a CES Innovations Award Honoree

Derek Kuhn

It is hard to believe that CES 2013 is less than eight weeks away. We look forward to it every year as it has become an important event not only for our company, customers, and partners, but for the automotive community as a whole. We will be hitting the 2013 event in style — and with an awesome award!

As a kick-off to CES, we exhibited at the CES Unveiled event in New York last week and gave folks an up-close and personal look at our reference vehicle – the specifically modified Jeep Wrangler Sahara. We demonstrated how our QNX CAR 2 application platform is helping to bring a new level of personalization into the vehicle. From the reskinnable digital instrument cluster, infotainment system, and media player to HD hands-free communication and voice recognition, the reference vehicle stole the show.

Adding to the excitement for the event was the announcement that the QNX CAR 2 application platform was named an International CES Innovations 2013 Design and Engineering Awards Honoree, in the Software & Mobile Apps category. Sponsored by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) the program was created to honor outstanding design and engineering in consumer electronics products across 29 product categories.

The countdown is on for CES 2013. Until then, check out my interview with the one and only Dave Graveline at CES Unveiled:



And before you go, here are some photos from the Unveiled event:


And we’re off! The CES Unveiled show floor is open


Checking out the tablet connectivity in the QNX reference vehicle


Hanging out with the guys from GamerFitNation.com


Being interviewed for the radio show "Into Tomorrow with Dave Graveline"

Top 8 questions for squeezing high-end tech into low-end infotainment

A couple of weeks ago, I hosted a webinar that addressed the question, “Is it possible to build an infotainment system that meets today's customer demands with yesterday's price tag?” The webinar explored several ways to reduce RAM and ROM requirements, eliminate hardware, and share hardware, all with the goal of cutting BOM costs.

As always, the audience asked lots of great questions, several of which I have answered here. Of course, these provide only a hint of the ground covered in the webinar, so I invite you to download the archived version to get the full details.

Built-in phone module versus brought-in smart phone: what is your take on this, and is a hybrid approach feasible?
The approach will vary from automaker to automaker. I think that embedded phones will be required for certain cars, especially if they use systems that rely on cloud-based services. This approach adds to the BOM cost, of course, but it may reduce overall cost, depending on what features can be off-loaded to the cloud.

Some brands will encourage brought-in devices as the lowest-cost alternative. The consumer will then have to deal with the setup and maintenance issues required to pair or charge the phone. I don’t see a clear-cut analysis that says one method will be better than the other — it really depends on what you want to accomplish.

Any thoughts on using MirrorLink to clone a virtual display to a remote physical LCD?
If you’re talking about a remote (as in cloud-based) device, I would say that HTML5 is a much more natural choice for a server-based application. If it’s a brought-in device, then MirrorLink or HTML5 could be appropriate.

If GPS is moved to a brought-in phone, how will a stolen vehicle be located?
It won’t be, unless the phone was left in the vehicle. This is one of the trade-offs you make when trying to reduce cost.

Of the cost-saving techniques you discussed, which are most likely to be used?
Already, some system designers are removing wake-up micros and DSPs. I’m not aware of any systems where the LCD has been removed, but this approach would probably offer the largest cost savings, making it a likely choice for entry-level systems and cost-sensitive markets.

Security and reliability are the main concerns of a head unit. Squeezing high-end technologies into low-end systems won’t relax those expectations. For instance, smart phone integration will be an add-on instead of replacing functionality of the head unit. Thoughts?
The trade-offs will need to be communicated to the customer. You can never build a head-unit augmented with a smartphone that works as reliably as the head unit operating by itself. As an OEM or Tier 1, you just don’t have enough control over the brought-in devices.

As an industry, we need to educate consumers. If they start relying on the phone in the car to provide certain features, then they will have to expect an inevitable degradation in overall system quality. It comes back to that famous adage: “cost, quality, or time — pick two”.

MirrorLink has a defined communication interface to the head unit. You also mentioned HTML5 as an option. Is there a defined standard yet for transmitting the HTML5 up to the head unit?
The interface between web server (i.e. phone) and web client (i.e. head unit) is already well established and tested. For some specialized features (for instance, allowing HTML5 code to access vehicle services) some standardization may be required. This will hopefully be a topic of discussion in November, at the automotive HTML5 workshop hosted by the W3C in Rome. Some Connected Car Consortium members have also discussed the possibility that, in the future, MirrorLink could add a transport mechanism based on HTML5.

You discussed peripheral sharing, using QNX transparent distributed processing. Does QNX TDP require secure authentication between distributed boxes?
No, it does not. It relies on standard POSIX user group permissions to provide access rights to devices.

Can you discuss any trends you see regarding Ethernet or TCP/IP in the vehicle?
Ethernet is definitely becoming more interesting in the vehicle, due to the introduction of Ethernet AVB. It makes a very natural replacement for audio-video transmission over MOST, and the additions to AVB that fulfil strict timing requirements can replace CAN or MOST for non-media vehicle messages. Ethernet also has obvious advantages when you need to access Wi-Fi networks, cloud services, and mobile devices.

Open source software in auto: a time that’s come (and gone)?

As mentioned in my previous post, Paul Hansen of the Hansen Report held an OEM panel at SAE Convergence. The panel was international in scope, with North America, Europe, and Japan equally represented through Ford, GM, Audi, Fiat, Nissan, and Toyota. Paul asked the participants to raise their hands if they would have any significant products based on the GENIVI open-source platform in production within the next five years.

The one punch
None of the panelists raised a hand. The answer caught me off guard so of course I immediately tweeted it (@truegryc). Though GM and Nissan are members of the GENIVI Alliance, they don’t have any GENIVI project with enough volume worth talking about. The other panelists aren’t planning to use GENIVI, either. (If BMW was on the panel, the total hands may not have been zero, but their singular stance would still be telling.)

The two punch
A similar question, about how OEMs could best utilize open source software, created an uncomfortably pregnant pause, with panelist members furtively looking at each other. Eventually, Ricky Hudi from Audi decided to tackle the issue directly. I’m paraphrasing his answer, but he said that open source software has not paid off as much as anticipated and that the risks of using it within automotive are still underappreciated.

Why not?
The sheer number of GENIVI members lends an impression of vitality. Despite that, we’ve seen GENIVI coming up as a competitor in automotive RFIs, RFQs, and RFPs less and less.

I have a few speculations as to why this is so. No OEM wants to spend tons of time and engineering effort to build something that helps every one of their competitors, and I don’t believe IP rights were clearly delineated from the beginning. As a committee-run organization, GENIVI seems to have responded sluggishly to new technologies; it also seems to have a conspicuously absent HMI strategy. And I think that people have figured out by now that building a production infotainment system is a hell of a lot harder than simply bolting a media player on top of your favorite OS.

Building communities
Does the lukewarm OEM response signal a rough road ahead for automotive open source software in general? Or for other up-and-coming replacements like Automotive Grade Linux? For the record, although I work for QNX Software Systems and our software isn’t open source, I definitely see value for open source in certain automotive situations. Open source provides a lot of value in broad efforts like building developer communities and fleshing out ecosystems. But open source isn’t the only way to accomplish these goals; they can also be achieved through open standards like HTML5, which is our approach at QNX. In fact, shortly after Mr. Hansen’s OEM panel, QNX’s Andrew Poliak held a Convergence session that focused on this exact point.

"Free" isn’t
Car companies often pursue open source with a single-minded goal of “getting software for free”. But within automotive, at least, using open source is not free. There are a lot of costs in producing software; licensing is just the part that impacts the Bill Of Materials. Non-recurring engineering costs, training, expertise creation, expertise retention, support, and licensing compliance add up: these items can easily overwhelm runtime license costs. Unfortunately, some companies have learned this lesson the hard way.

Recall? What recall?

Red Bend demonstrates firmware-over-the-air (FOTA) updates of QNX CAR 2 application platform at Telematics Munich

I think anyone with a passing knowledge of software development in automotive would agree that the infotainment systems currently under development are light years ahead of the systems that shipped only 5 years ago. The blurring of the automotive and the consumer experience is accelerating at an amazing pace. And the processing power being specified for next-gen infotainment aligns with what is expected in advanced smart phones.

It's no surprise, then, that the size of the code base and the complexity of the underlying software is growing at a similar pace. This complexity creates a maintenance challenge. On your phone, upgrades are pushed out regularly in a way that you barely notice: you get a notification of an update, push a couple buttons, and presto, you are up to date. In automotive, if we stick to the traditional methodology, this same type of upgrade would require a recall. You'd have to take your car to the dealership and they would reflash whatever needs to be updated. Expensive for the auto manufacturer and a big pain for the consumer.

Thankfully, people are thinking about this. Companies like Red Bend Software have cut their teeth in the mobile space, specializing in firmware-over-the-air updates, or FOTA for short. They can generate something called a delta file, which effectively encapsulates the difference (or delta) between what is currently on the end device and the new software build. In some cases, the file can be up to 50 times smaller than the new build. They also have the ability to track current load status of all the devices deployed.

So what does that get you? Using FOTA, OEMs will be able to minimize the network bandwidth required for upgrades and to manage the update process remotely, moving us all towards that Zen state of automagic. I don't know about you, but anything that saves me a trip to the dealer is a good thing.

Red Bend will demonstrate this capability by updating versions of the QNX CAR 2 application platform this week at Telematics Munich. So if you happen to be there, do stop to check it out.

Can I get a roadmap? Amen!

I attended SAE Convergence last week, and I've got a couple observations that I'll be blogging about. Here’s the first.

The Panel
On the second day of the show, I attended a very informative OEM panel moderated by Paul Hansen. Paul asked the automakers what their suppliers could do to help them build their infotainment systems. Alan Amici from Fiat said, "I would like suppliers to share their roadmaps," to which the other OEMs nodded in agreement. On the surface, this seems like a rather gentle, generic request. However, I think it's actually a powerful insight that signals a fundamental change in our industry. Mr. Amici took a cue from our former president Theodore Roosevelt, speaking softly but carrying a big stick. Let me elaborate.

The History
If you stepped back in our way-back machine to three years ago or earlier, you'd find a persistent pattern. Every OEM would fully spec every software feature of every module. Which meant that every Tier 1 and software supplier, including QNX Software Systems, would have to jump through hoops trying to cut, fold, and tear their existing software to meet those custom specs. It also meant building tons of new software on top to fill the gaps. The reasoning here is pretty simple — an automaker is building a custom system, so why not build something that reflects exactly what they want? In this environment, we always presented our software roadmap and the OEMs would look politely, but it rarely influenced their designs. Instead, we ended up providing a completely bespoke version of our software stack.

The Change
About two years ago, we started to notice a powerful undercurrent in automotive that bucks this trend. Why the change? OEMs absolutely need to create consumer relevant products, and to reduce the time required to release them. More and more, they need to reuse rather than re-invent. Several OEMs at the forefront of this trend have already been exploring this. How? By working directly with the Tier 1 and suppliers to design the system with an eye towards heavy reuse of existing technologies, instead of trying to design each system from the ground up.

The Apps
This effort to reuse instead of recreate will be necessary not just to reduce the time of delivery, but also to enable any type of cross-brand app experience. Apps that live in app stores require a consistent set of APIs. It’s very hard to do that if every single OEM is busy customizing and recreating every aspect of the system software. The “we’ll design our own” approach will result in fragmentation even worse than that experienced by the Android community. Unconstrained, it carries the threat of creating dozens of independent silos, with no ability to share apps between car makers. It means dilution of the already small automotive volume into even tinier markets — one for each automaker — which doesn’t bode well for anyone building automotive apps. OEMs will need to buck the desire to customize everything if they want to build a thriving app community.

The Punchline
When automakers are focused on their value-add, like HMI designs and custom features, instead of reinventing plumbing, it helps everyone. The OEMs, the tier ones, and the software suppliers benefit from using a consistent platform amongst themselves. So Mr/Ms Carmaker: would you like to see our roadmaps? We'd absolutely love to share them. We’d even like to help build them with you!

This post originally appeared in Andy's True Gryc blog.

Autonomous cars? Suddenly, I’m not so skeptical

Guest post from Emil Dautovic, European automotive business development manager for QNX Software Systems

As a driving enthusiast, I have always felt a bit skeptical about the notion of autonomous cars. The reason is simple: I actually enjoy driving and don’t want someone else to do it for me, in this case the car itself.

Recently, however, my skepticism has begun to soften. I am fascinated, for example, by the SARTRE road train project, where a lead vehicle takes responsibility for a platoon of semi-autonomous cars. Also, recent research from the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute suggests that, when it comes to some driving tasks, ADAS systems can already put many human drivers to shame.

Autonomous drive will become especially important when today’s “always on” generation starts to buy cars in earnest. They will, no doubt, want to consume multimedia and interact through social media even while on the road, and automakers will need to accommodate them.

HMIs with more (and less) distraction
What would this mean for car makers? Among other things, the infotainment system in a self-driving car could offer an HMI mode that gives the driver more freedom to pay attention to non-driving activities. When the car subsequently needs a human driver (for instance, it becomes disconnected from a road train), the infotainment system could disable these features and immediately go back to a less distracting user interface.

Also, driver assist systems — such as those for detecting animals and pedestrians — would need to be integrated with the road train system to decide how to react when, say, a rabbit runs in front of the car. For instance, should the car brake and warn other cars of the fact, or would it be safer to simply keep driving? It will be interesting to follow this initiative and see how the technical and business aspects evolve, and how, for example, the owner of the lead vehicle will be paid.

For another interesting example of research into autonomous drive, check out the BRAiVE project led by the VisLab team at the University of Parma. The BRAiVE project uses a variety of sensors, with a focus on low-cost alternatives that could realistically integrated into in production cars.

Bells and whistles
So what kind of impact could all this have on a company providing automotive software platforms?

There will, I believe, be an increased demand for a platform that could run all of these applications, enabling the advanced use cases while ensuring that critical functions always have enough processor power. And, of course, the platform will have to be reliable. If this same platform could offer all the bells and whistles available in consumer electronics and demanded by younger drivers, the self-driving future might prove to be a bit closer than we think.

By the way, if you’re unfamiliar with the SARTRE road train project, check out this video:

---

More about Emil
Emil Dautovic is an automotive business development manager at QNX Software Systems, where he is responsible for the European automotive market. Prior to joining QNX, he worked as a business area manager for The Astonishing Tribe (TAT), where he built TAT's automotive business from scratch and helped transform the company into an important player in the automotive HMI field with leading automotive OEMs and tier ones. He has also worked at AU-System (later Teleca and Obigo), where he served as a consultant on GSM base station development and as a sales representative serving mobile phone OEMs and ODMs worldwide. Emil holds an M.Sc. in Electronic Engineering from Lunds Tekniska Högskola.

Word of the day: Electrification

At this week’s Convergence in Detroit, Mark Reuss, NA president of GM, told a crowd at Tuesday’s keynote, “Hybridization is no longer enough; electrification is the future.”

What struck me most about this statement was the word, electrification; I had yet to hear it in the automotive context. So I did what anyone with a rocket stick would do, I googled it on my way home. The trail led back to GM’s blue paper on sustainable urban mobility, Roadmap to 2030.

For some time now I’ve been thinking about getting an electric or hybrid car but have been bemoaning the lack of choice. Apparently, the fact that a new ground-transportation paradigm requires wide-spread societal alignment hadn’t occurred to me. You just put up a few recharging stations, right?

GM EN-V electric concept car
Source Wikipedia

GM makes eight recommendations in their blue paper, two of which I find to be particularly interesting:

• Integrate electrically powered, connected vehicles into a multi-modal transport system that incorporates sophisticated inter-city transport, comprehensive subway systems, traditional vehicle movement, and specialized smaller urban vehicles
   
• Identify a series of “lighthouse” projects to demonstrate the potential and viability of connected electrically driven vehicles in a controlled environment such as an eco-city or small town

It is nice to see a company taking such a definitive stand and boldly painting a vision for the future; this kind of creative thinking is what we need.

I was surprised to discover the blue paper is from 2010; still if you haven’t already read it, it is worth a look. You can download the paper from the GM web site.